Improving diet assessment of Arctic terrestrial predators with the size of rodent mandibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predator–prey interactions can control population fluctuations of several terrestrial vertebrates and energy fluxes in food webs. Quantifying these interactions typically requires the number of prey consumed by predators to be known, but prey size is often ignored. We hypothesized that rodent mandibles, which are routinely found in predatory bird pellets and mammalian scats, could be used to accurately determine prey size and thus estimate biomass consumed by Arctic predators. We used 1863 lemmings and voles from museum and field specimens collected across the North American Arctic to relate three measurements of the dentary bone and one on the molar toothrow with individual body mass. When species and location of specimens are known, our results suggest that the body mass of small rodents can be estimated with high precision using the dentary bone measurements (average R 2 ranging from 0.73 to 0.81), especially for lemmings and Microtus voles. Body mass can also be estimated with reasonable precision using the dentary bone measurements even when species or location was unknown (0.71 ≤ R 2 ≤ 0.80). Equations to convert mandible size to body mass are provided for site‐ and species‐specific estimations. Geographic variations in the relationship between mandible size and body mass were found, suggesting potential effects of genetic isolation or interactions with the immediate environment on size. Using mandible measurements in prey remains allows more precise estimation of biomass consumed by predators, which is essential to quantify energy fluxes within ecosystems and examine resource partitioning among Arctic predators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".